Syrian Intelligence Report Not So Clear

The Assad government continues to insist that it did not use chemical weapons in the attack on 21 August. It approved an extension of the UN inspection team's visit and requested that it investigate three gas attacks against Syrian soldiers since 21 August.

Lebanon's Daily Star reported on 26 August that at least four Hizballah fighters are receiving treatment in Beirut after coming into contact with chemical agents in Syria, a security source said. 

The source said four or five members came into contact with the chemical agents while searching a group of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar over the weekend. (The attack on 21 August is being called the Jobar incident.)

Last Saturday, Syrian state television said Syrian soldiers found chemical agents in Jobar and that some had suffocated while entering the tunnels

Comment: The three primary questions about the attack remain unanswered.

                        - What agent was used?

- How was it delivered?

- By whom?

What appeared to be a slam dunk on Tuesday has weakened as more information has emerged about the source of US intelligence and about Syrian rebel chemical warfare capabilities. A lot of information has emerged, but is not receiving mainstream coverage in the US.

The agent. All experts agree that some kind of chemical incident occurred on 21 August east of Damascus. As for the agent, multiple experts in Feedback claimed it was sarin. An equal number of experts in Feedback disagreed and claimed it was some other agent. Almost all based their judgments on symptoms observed in videos posted by rebels or on second hand reports of medical examinations.

Other videos posted to the web showed bags of chemicals with the label "made in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Factory for Chlorine and Alkalis" that were captured in rebel strongholds. The factory, known as SACHLO, is located in Riyadh and is hiring at this time.

Still other videos showed liquids in canisters that the reporter said were found in rebel tunnels. A third set purported to show a cache of chemical canisters and rockets that had been captured in a rebel bunker that could be fired by an artillery piece.

All the videos are inconclusive. None are dated; the location is never established; and none have a reliable chain of custody. At best they establish that both sides have chemicals, have used chemicals at some time and that more than one agent has been used by one or other side.

The delivery system. The open source information on instrumentality indicates rockets or modified artillery shells. Both sides have rockets that can deliver chemicals. The rebels have posted to the Web that they have such a capability and showed it to Sky News.

The attacker. Concerning the attacker, the mainstream media overwhelming claim that the Syrian government executed the attack. The evidence is not as clear as this assertion implies.

The Syrian government denies responsibility and claims its own forces suffered from a rebel chemical attack. The government is winning the fight and has no obvious motive to undertake action that would invite US military intervention that might affect the momentum of its successes. At least, that is what the Syrian government has said.

The rebels have strong motives to internationalize their fight and to manipulate the US into fighting on behalf of Islamists whose colleagues attacked the US in 2001. Some American officials and experts have asserted that the rebels have no chemical weapons. Not even the rebels say that.

What has not been reported nor evaluated are rebel claims, published by Sky News in July 2013 for example, that they have a sarin chemical weapons program and delivery systems.

So the media tally is the rebels claim they have gas and were gassed. The Government acknowledges that the rebels have gas and admits it has gas, but denies it used it. The Government claims that its gas is under strict control and the US officially has confirmed the Syrian government's claim. Both sides also have rockets that can deliver gas.

No news service has investigated rebel use of gas on 21 August. Nobody has bothered to ask any questions.

The role of Israeli intelligence. Finally, there is the question of the intercepted conversations. They remain classified so no one knows what was said, by whom, in what language, in what context, obtained by what reliable collection system, translated by whom, with what periodicity of collection and with what editing by supervisors. Some reporters claimed the conversations were between low level people. Others claimed a senior civilian official talked directly with a chemical unit military commander. That kind of direct communication is not possible even in the US military.

A further complication is two US sources assert that Israeli intelligence intercepted the conversations and passed the content to NSA. This scenario raises a new set of concerns about the reliability of the channel. Was the information doctored? Do some Israelis have a motive to lie to the US regarding events in Syria? 

At this point, there are no answers to the three primary questions based on open source reporting. The findings of the UN investigators most likely will be inconclusive as to who executed the attack, but should help confirm the nature of the agent and the most likely delivery system.

Russia: Interfax quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying Russia has decided to deploy to the eastern Mediterranean a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva, and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet in the "coming days."

Comment: Earlier this summer, Russian sources stated that the Russian Navy had established a permanent squadron in the Mediterranean Sea of 16 ships. Today's announcement said the two new ships would be part of a routine rotation. That is the language the US uses to increase its naval presence anywhere through overlapping rotation schedules.

This deployment does not necessarily mean the Russians will defend Syria. It does mean the Russians have raised the price and risks of a US attack on Syria.

UK-US-Syria: For the record. The British parliament voted against military action against Syria. The British have fought Muslims and Muslim tribes for nearly 200 years. This generation has had enough of war against Muslims.

Counterterroism: The FBI's War on the NYPD

Wednesday morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly denounced as fiction allegations in an Associated Press article published today that the NYPD “labeled entire mosques as terrorist organizations” in order to spy on imams and members without any prior proof of wrongdoing. Kelly said the piece’s purpose was to “hype a book” that the authors of the article have written. He went on to insist that the federal judiciary has specifically authorized the activities of the NYPD’s counter-terrorism unit. Moreover, Kelly hinted that the agenda the AP reporters and their book is furthering is not so much one of innocent Muslims or the ACLU but that of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is still angry that the NYPD had been allowed to poach on their territory and work on counter-terrorism rather than ordinary police work.

Indeed, even a quick reading of today’s AP piece, which is more or less a summary of many previous articles on the subject, indicates that although many of the official sources remain unidentified, the FBI’s fingerprints are all over what must be viewed as a hatchet job on the NYPD. But though this sort of federal-local rivalry is the stuff of numerous Law and Order episodes, the stakes in this dispute are bigger than even the egos of the personalities involved. At the heart of the tussle is the plain fact that after the 9/11 attacks, the NYPD felt that they could no longer play by the old rules of engagement that had led to the murder of thousands of New Yorkers at the hands of Islamist terrorists. Instead, they got to work investigating not only al-Qaeda imports but also the very real threat of homegrown Islamist terror.

The NYPD has come under a steady barrage of criticism for using its resources to seek out potential terror suspects in exactly the places where they are known to congregate: religious institutions led by people who encourage support for extreme Islamist views. While the FBI has chosen to avoid flack by treating Islamists with kid gloves, the NYPD did their job. The AP’s hit pieces should be viewed in the context of a long campaign by many in the liberal mainstream media to falsely assert that there has been a post-9/11 backlash of discrimination against American Muslims. But more than that, it is also part of an effort to demonize counter-terrorism work at a time when paranoia about government spying fed by the controversy over the National Security Agency is running high. But while many in Congress and the media are feeding the spirit of complacency about terror, Kelly has rightly tried to remind us that efforts such as those of the NYPD are all that stands between the nation and new atrocities.

As Kelly said:

“We have an agreement that has been authorized by a federal judge,” Kelly answered. “We follow that stipulation to the letter, and it authorizes us to do a whole series of things. Certainly investigations are part of it. We follow leads wherever they take us. We’re not intimidated as to where that lead takes us.”

Yet that is exactly what the NYPD and the anti-anti-terror lobby led by those who claim to speak for American Muslims and civil liberties extremists want.

The point of the AP piece is to portray the police investigations as a threat to the freedom of religion and the First Amendment protections that would theoretically protect sermons or other activities at mosques from any scrutiny. But the idea that the Constitution allows people to preach violence or to create places where potential terrorists are inspired or given guidance with impunity is absurd. If some religious institutions have come under such scrutiny it is because the NYPD has had a reasonable suspicion that such activities have taken place there. To treat any such investigations as inherently prejudicial not only ignores the duty of the police to follow criminals to their source but also ignores the reality that radical Islamists have found a foothold on our shores.

While I have little doubt that the actions of Kelly and the NYPD will be upheld in the courts against suits brought by critics of their policies, what their opponents are shooting for is just as important as a legal victory: the delegitimization of counter-terrorism work that is willing to address the problem of domestic Islamist terror. That is the agenda pursued by some Arab and Muslim groups that have even counseled their members not to cooperate with the authorities when they investigate terror cases.

But it is even more troubling to see that the FBI is willing to help this cause via leaks and prejudicial anonymous quotes whose purpose is to pursue their rivalry with the NYPD. It should be remembered that such turf wars was one of the principle causes of the failure of the FBI and other authorities in the 9/11 case. To see the FBI revert to this sort of lamentable behavior now in order to settle scores with the NYPD is nothing less than a tragedy.

The NYPD deserves the applause and the gratitude of the city as well as the people of the country as a whole for their sterling work that has served to ferret out potential and actual terror plots. Kelly is resolute in his determination that on his watch, those trusted with defending the safety of New Yorkers will not revert to the sort of September 10th mentality that has characterized many of those who wish to pretend there is no such thing as Islamist terror.

We can only hope that the next mayor of New York will empower him and his successors to keep up the good fight to keep the city and the nation safe.

Harvard Study Dispels Myth Gun Control Reduces Murder Rates

Once again, a study from an organization that you would never accuse of being “gun-loving” or “right-wing” seems to disprove the myth that the availability of handguns increases murder rates.  In fact, it doesn’t.
Once again,

The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides.  Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.

Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high.  In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study.  ”Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”  In other words, the elimination of guns does not eliminate murder, and in the case of gun-controlled Russia, murder rates are quite high.

The study revealed several European countries with significant gun ownership, like Norway, Finland, Germany and France – had remarkably low murder rates.  Contrast that with Luxembourg, “where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.”

The study found no evidence to suggest that the availability of guns contributes to higher murder rates anywhere in the world.  ”Of course, it may be speculated that murder rates around the world would be higher if guns were more available. But there is simply no evidence to support this.”

Further, the report cited, “the determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism.” Meaning, it’s not guns that kill people. People kill people.


If the left won’t believe researchers at far-left Harvard, who will they believe?

Searching The Web Is No Longer Anonymous Or Is It?

In a devastating report, the Washington Post, in June of this year, says that a secret government program, code-named PRISM, has been spying on millions of American's by tapping into 9 US Internet companies. Here's what you need to know.

According to the Washington Post, who managed to obtain private documents, the NSA and FBI have been tapping into the internal servers of 9 major US Internet companies. The aforementioned government agencies have been receiving audio, video, photos, emails, documents, and connection logs that essentially lets the NSA and FBI track an individual's location and contacts over a period of time.

This is the first time PRISM has been announced publicly. It was officially established in 2007, and experienced "exponential growth" in the following six years, even though both the Obama and Bush administrations have been criticized heavily for invading on the civil liberties on the American people. It was so secret, in fact, that the members of Congress that knew about the program couldn't speak about it at all, even though there was multiple debates on the ever-graying line between government surveillance and the privacy of Americans.

PRISM's disclosure comes soon after reports of another controversial surveillance order. Reports have surged that the National Security Agency has been coercing Verizon into handing information of all phone calls from Verizon's 116 million customers since 2006. The President has justified the act saying that it is in an important tool int he war against terrorism

Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple have been involved in the program for years. Dropbox isn't an official member yet, but they're rumored to be joining soon. As you can see from the chart above from, the first member to join was Microsoft, on 9/11/2007. Yahoo soon follow, joining in February 2008. Google, Facebook, and PalTalk all joined in 2009, while Youtube was the only company joining PRISM in 2010. Skype and AOL joined in 2011, and Apple joined finally in 2012. According to the Washington Post, Apple resisted joining the program for more than five years until they joined in 2012. Twitter, interestingly, isn't listed as a member. The Washington Post notes that Twitter values user data tremendously, which may be a reason the company isn't listed as a member.

Here's what a Google spokesperson said about the allegations regarding PRISM:

"Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a 'back door' for the government to access private user data."

So, with fears of sharing too much information with the search engines or the government about your searches, where can you go for a more private search experience than Google or Bing offer by default? That’s a good question, but there are anonymous alternatives to the big guys that do not track you through cookies or your IP address:

1. Duck Duck Go

2. Gibiru

3. IxQuick

4. Look Seek

5. Lukol

6. Start Page

7. Mother Pipe (UK)

I suggest you try them all and find the one you feel is the most comfortable to use. I have tested them all and found that each takes your search query, removes all identifiable information about the searcher, and submits the search anonymously. Your IP address is never recorded, your visit is not logged, and no tracking cookies are placed on your browser.

I would also like to thank my buddy John Clifton for initiating this search for anonymous search engines. Up until now, I had been using anonymous proxies and using an anonymous search engine is so much easier letting someone else worry about security.

German Government Warns Key Entities Not To Use Windows 8 – Links The NSA

 “A Special Surveillance Chip”

According to leaked internal documents from the German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) that Die Zeit obtained, IT experts figured out that Windows 8, the touch-screen enabled, super-duper, but sales-challenged Microsoft operating system is outright dangerous for data security. It allows Microsoft to control the computer remotely through a built-in backdoor. Keys to that backdoor are likely accessible to the NSA – and in an unintended ironic twist, perhaps even to the Chinese.

The backdoor is called “Trusted Computing,” developed and promoted by the Trusted Computing Group, founded a decade ago by the all-American tech companies AMD, Cisco, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, and Wave Systems. Its core element is a chip, the Trusted Platform Module (TPM), and an operating system designed for it, such as Windows 8. Trusted Computing Group has developed the specifications of how the chip and operating systems work together.

Its purpose is Digital Rights Management and computer security. The system decides what software had been legally obtained and would be allowed to run on the computer, and what software, such as illegal copies or viruses and Trojans, should be disabled. The whole process would be governed by Windows, and through remote access, by Microsoft.

Now there is a new set of specifications out, creatively dubbed TPM 2.0. While TPM allowed users to opt in and out, TPM 2.0 is activated by default when the computer boots up. The user cannot turn it off. Microsoft decides what software can run on the computer, and the user cannot influence it in any way. Windows governs TPM 2.0. And what Microsoft does remotely is not visible to the user. In short, users of Windows 8 with TPM 2.0 surrender control over their machines the moment they turn it on for the first time.
It would be easy for Microsoft or chip manufacturers to pass the backdoor keys to the NSA and allow it to control those computers. NO, Microsoft would never do that, we protest. Alas, Microsoft, as we have learned from the constant flow of revelations, informs the US government of security holes in its products well before it issues fixes so that government agencies can take advantage of the holes and get what they’re looking for.

Experts at the BSI, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and the Federal Administration warned unequivocally against using computers with Windows 8 and TPM 2.0. One of the documents from early 2012 lamented, “Due to the loss of full sovereignty over the information technology, the security objectives of ‘confidentiality’ and ‘integrity’ can no longer be guaranteed.”

Elsewhere, the document warns, “This can have significant consequences on the IT security of the Federal Administration.” And it concludes, “The use of ‘Trusted Computing’ technology in this form ... is unacceptable for the Federal Administration and for operators of critical infrastructure.”

Another document claims that Windows 8 with TPM 2.0 is “already” no longer usable. But Windows 7 can “be operated safely until 2020.” After that other solutions would have to be found for the IT systems of the Administration.

The documents also show that the German government tried to influence the formation of the TPM 2.0 specifications – a common practice in processes that take years and have many stakeholders – but was rebuffed. Others have gotten what they wanted, Die Zeit wrote. The NSA for example. At one of the last meetings between the TCG and various stakeholders, someone dropped the line, “The NSA agrees.”

Rüdiger Weis, a professor at the Beuth University of Technology in Berlin, and a cryptographic expert who has dealt with Trusted Computing for years, told Die Zeit in an interview that Microsoft wanted to completely change computing by integrating “a special surveillance chip” in every electronic device. Through that chip and the processes of Windows 8, particularly Secure Boot, “users largely lose control over their own hardware and software.”

But wouldn’t it contribute to higher levels of security? Certain aspects actually raise the risks, he said. For example, during production, the secret key to that backdoor is generated outside the chip and then transferred to the chip. During this process, copies of all keys can be made. “It’s possible that there are even legal requirements to that effect that cannot be reported.” And so the TPM is “a dream chip of the NSA.”

Perhaps even more ominously, he added: “The other realistic scenario is that TPM chip manufactures don’t sit within reach of the NSA, but in China....”

Apple phased out the surveillance chips in 2009. Linux doesn’t comply with the standards, and Linux machines cannot use the technology. Microsoft defended itself the best it could. The TPM is activated by default because most users accept defaults, it said. If users would have to activate the functions themselves, many users would end up operating a less secure system. And of course, government regulations that would require that users have the option to opt in or out would be unwise.

Instead, hardware manufactures could build machines with the chips deactivated, Microsoft said. If you want to have control over your computer, that’s what you’d have to buy. Another option would be to switch to Linux machines, something that the city government of Munich has started 10 years ago; the changeover should be complete before the year is up. This aspect of the NSA debacle cannot possibly be twisted into bullish news for Microsoft.

Government Shutdown? Blame the Real Culprits... Barry and Harry

There are two statements one can make with certainty about the current situation inside the beltway. First, truth is a rare commodity. What was promised to be the most transparent administration in American history has proven to, by comparison, make Richard Nixon’s Administration look like Wikileaks. And second, the Republican Party, at its highest level, has a lethal messaging problem. These two truths combine for a moment in time when the United States government is not only susceptible to Progressive despotism, but well down the road to succumbing to it.

Where the transparency and honesty of the Obama Administration is concerned, the examples of dishonesty are many. From using the Internal Revenue Service to cripple their ideological and political opponents to advancing fiction as the cause of the slaughter of four Americans by al Qaeda operative in a quest for an election victory, the list of matters ringing dishonest emanating from this administration is profound:

▪ The IRS scandal
▪ Benghazi cover-up
▪ The NSA surveillance scandal
▪ Spying on the media
▪ Fast & Furious
▪ Being able to keep your current coverage under Obamacare
▪ The Pigford debacle
▪ Sebelius violating the Hatch Act
▪ The use of secret emails by agency heads
▪ Solyndra
▪ Dropping prosecution of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation

The list goes on and on and on, all the while the mainstream media provides cursory coverage at best, even as they provide rhetorical cover for the administration’s misdeeds.

But perhaps the most dishonest misinformation emanating from the Obama White House – and from the Democrat and Progressive controlled Senate, for that matter, is that Republicans want to shut down government. This out-and-out lie was false in 2011 and it is false today.

Since Republicans wrestled control of the US House of Representatives from the talons of Nancy Pelosi and her Progressive coven, the House has satisfied its constitutional obligation to craft and pass a budget, on time, each and every year, including for 2014. Conversely, Democrats and Progressives in the Senate have manufactured gimmicks and excuses to elude their budgetary obligations.

On January 7th, 2013, The Washington Examiner’s Byron York wrote:

“Tuesday marks the 1,350th day since the Senate passed a budget. The law requires Congress to pass a budget every year, on the grounds that Americans deserve to know how the government plans to spend the trillions of taxpayer dollars it collects, along with dollars it borrows at the taxpayers’ expense. But Majority Leader Harry Reid, who last allowed a budget through the Senate in April 2009, has ignored the law since then.

“There’s no mystery why. The budget passed by large Democrat majorities in the first months of the Obama administration had hugely elevated levels of spending in it. By not passing a new spending plan since, Reid has in effect made those levels the new budgetary baseline. Congress has kept the government going with continuing resolutions based on the last budget signed into law.

“While Reid has forbidden action, the House has passed budgets as required. Senate Democrats have been highly critical of those budgets, designed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. But under Reid’s leadership, Democrats have steadfastly refused to come up with a plan of their own.”

Yet the narrative advanced by Reid, his Democrat Senate cronies and the White House is that it is Republicans who exist as “the party of ‘no’” in the US Congress. The facts, as they present, prove otherwise.

Which leads us to the current misinformation spin being advanced by the Progressives in Washington, DC: The Republicans want to shut down government over Obamacare. Truth be told, even the staunchest TEA Partier in the House and/or Senate has gone on record as not wanting to shut down government.

Article I, Sections 7, 8 and 9, respectively, of the United States Constitution states mandates that the “power of the purse” resides solely with the US House of Representatives:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”

“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

A plan being advanced by the fiscally responsible in the US House proposes to fully fund the US federal government, devoid of any funding for the notorious and ill-crafted Affordable Care Act. The facts surrounding the proposal are thus:

▪ Government funding through the Continuing Resolution will expire on September 30th.

▪ The House should pass a Continuing Resolution to fund the entire federal government, except for Obamacare. To do so, the Continuing Resolution should include the Defund Obamacare Act (HR2682/S1292) to explicitly prohibit mandatory and discretionary Obamacare spending.

▪ If Republicans stand together, with 218 votes in the House and 41 in the Senate, we can win. House Republicans should send the Senate a Continuing Resolution that fully funds the government without funding Obamacare, and Senate Republicans should ensure that no Continuing Resolution providing Obamacare funding is signed into law.

▪ If Republicans do this, President Obama and Harry Reid will falsely accuse Republicans of threatening a government shutdown. But only they control whether to shut down the government just to implement their failed law.

To date, more than 60 House Republicans and 14 Senate Republicans have joined in this effort. The likes of Richard Shelby (R-AL), John McCain (R-AZ), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Roy Blount (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Orin Hatch (R-UT) have come out against the measure for what can only be construed as purely political reasons.

Given that the Progressives of the Obama White House and the Reid Senate have no issue with crafting falsehoods to advance their political power, Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and fiscally conservative Democrats should admit this inevitability. Whether fiscally responsible Republicans fund government devoid of Obamacare or not, Progressives and Democrats – including their sycophants in the mainstream media – are going to blame the GOP for any and all push back on the budget, the debt ceiling and the implementation of Obamacare, no matter what Republicans do.

This makes it all the more frustrating, if not infuriating, that Republicans at the national level – both elected and not – are miserable at messaging. In the last decades Republicans have shown not only a weakness in being able to message; to convey simple cognitive thoughts, to the American people, they have displayed a complete inability to craft and take control of “the narrative,” pre-emptively.

And while “establishment Republicans” (many of whom are Progressive elitists in their own right) blame their inability to communicate to the American people on a “facture within the party,” this avoids the stark truth that the national Republican party hasn’t had a coherent message or employed a potent counter-measure to the Progressive message since the days of Ronald Reagan.

(A note about the “facture within the party: It is more a confrontation between moderate Republicans who have allowed the party to be “nudged” to the ideological Left continuously and without reciprocation during their tenure, and those loyal to the party’s charter and tenets circa 1856; those identified as the TEA Party faction of the Republican Party; those advancing the “Defund Obamacare” movement in Congress. To wit, establishment Republicans didn’t want Ronald Reagan as their nominee either. He would have been considered a TEA Partier had the movement existed in his day.)

That said, the only thing keeping the Defund Obamacare initiative from saving the country from economic devastation and a nation devoid of individual rights is intestinal fortitude; courage and conviction.

On August 21st, 2013, a gunman, armed with an AK-47 and over 500 rounds of ammunition, entered a Georgia elementary school. Michael Brandon Hill, a 20-year-old man with a history of mental health issues, proceeded to take the school bookkeeper, Antoinette Tuff, hostage, in what could have been yet another senseless tragedy; another murderous rampage. Instead, the situation resolved in Mr. Hill being taken into custody unharmed, the children of the school safe and sound, all because Ms. Tuff had the courage to try to do the right thing. Ms. Tuff talked the would-be gunman into surrendering and seeking medical attention. Because of Ms. Tuff’s courage, because of her willingness to put the good of the children before her own self-preservation, everyone involved in the incident lives to see another day: Hill gets the help he needs and the children live to embrace their futures.

That the “establishment Republicans” on Capitol Hill would display the same courage as Ms. Tuff when it comes to doing the right thing; when it comes to making a decision to take a stand; when it comes to placing the good of the people about political self-preservation. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuffs on Capitol Hill. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuff’s in the Republican Party.

But there was a time when this was not the case.

Under Our First Anti-Western Pro-Islamist President

Under our first anti-Western, pro-Islamist president, US foreign policy has entered the Twilight Zone. Saudi Arabia — home to 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers — is actually siding with Israel and the secular government of Egypt against Muslim Brotherhood insurgents and their ally, the US government:

"The U.S.’s closest Middle East allies are undercutting American policy in Egypt, encouraging the military to confront the Muslim Brotherhood rather than reconcile, U.S. and Arab officials said."

The parallel efforts by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have blunted U.S. influence with Egypt’s military leadership and underscored how the chaos there has pulled Israel into ever-closer alignment with those Gulf states, officials said.

A senior Israeli official called the anti-Muslim Brotherhood nations “the axis of reason.”

The Obama administration first had sought to persuade Egyptian military leader Gen. Abdel Fattah Al Sisi not to overthrow the elected government of President Mohammed Morsi and then to reconcile with his Muslim Brotherhood base.

But in contrast to some, General Sisi is no sissy when it comes to confronting radical Islam — even when significant financial pressure is brought to bear in its favor by Obama.

“Our ability to influence the outcome in Egypt is limited,” said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, the U.S.’s main interlocutor with Gen. Sisi.

That’s certainly a relief.

Arab countries are stepping up to provide aid pulled by Obama. Astonishingly, they are the good guys, whereas the US government is backing Islamic terrorist insurgents. Unlike Obama, Arab nations want to arrest the spread of radical Islam so that the entire Middle East doesn’t turn into a giant seething Iran.
Meanwhile, Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood buddies have been running amok in Egypt, largely targeting defenseless Christians. The following Christian institutions were attacked over a period of three days:

Catholic Churches and Convents
1. Franciscan church and school (road 23) – burned (Suez)
2. Monastery of the Holy Shepherd and hospital – burned (Suez)
3. Church and Monasteryof the Good Shepherd – burned (Asuit)
4. Coptic Catholic Church of St. George – burned (Minya, Upper Egypt)
5. Church of the Jesuits – burned (Minya, Upper Egypt)
6. Fatima Basilica – attacked – Heliopolis
7. Coptic Catholic Church of St. Mark – burned (Minya – Upper Egypt)
8. Convent (Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) – burned (Upper Egypt)
9. Church of St. Teresa – burned (Asuit, Upper Egypt)
10. Franciscan Church and School – burned (Asuit, Upper Egypt)
11. Convent of St Joseph and school – burned (Minya, Upper Egypt)
12. Coptic Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart – torched (Minya, Upper Egypt)
13 Convent of the Sisters of Saint Mary – attacked (Cairo)
14. School of the Holy Shepherd – attacked (Minya, Upper Egypt)

Orthodox and Evangelical Churches
1. Anglican Church of St. Saviour – burned (Suez)
2. Evangelical Church of St Michael – sacked (Asuit, Upper Egypt)
3. Coptic Orthodox Church of St. George – Burned (Minya, Upper Egypt)
4. Church of Al-Esla – burned (Asuit, Upper Egypt)
5. Adventist Church – burned, pastor & his wife abducted (Asuit, Upper Egypt)
6. Church of the Apostles – burned (Asuit, Upper Egypt)
7. Church of the Holy renewal – burned (Asuit, Upper Egypt)
8. Diocesan Centre Coptic Orthodox Qusiya – burned (Asuit, Upper Egypt)
9. Church of St. George – burned (Arish, North Egypt)
10. Church of St. George in al-Wasta – burned (Beni Suef, Upper Egypt)
11. Church of the Virgin Mary – attacked (Maadi, Cairo)
12. Church of the Virgin Mary – attacked (Mostorod, Cairo)
13. Coptic Orthodox Church of St. George – attacked (Helwan, Cairo)
14. Church of St. Mary of El Naziah – burned (Fayoum, Upper Egypt)
15. Church of Santa Damiana – sacked and burned (Fayoum, Upper Egypt)
16. Church of St. Theodore – burned (Fayoum, Upper Egypt)
17. Evangelical Church of al-Zorby – Sacked/destroyed (Fayoum, Upper Egypt)
18. Church of St. Joseph – burned (Fayoum, Upper Egypt)
19. Franciscan School – burned (Fayoum, Upper Egypt)
20. Coptic Orthodox Diocesan Center of St. Paul – burned (Gharbiya, Delta)
21. Coptic Orthodox Church of St. Anthony – burned (Giza)
22. Coptic Church of St. George – burned (Atfeeh, Giza)
23. Church of the Virgin Mary and father Abraham – burned (Upper Egypt)
24. Church of St. Mina Abu Hilal Kebly – burned (Minya, Upper Egypt)
25. Baptist Church in Beni Mazar – burned (Minya, Upper Egypt)
26. Church of Amir Tawadros – burned (Minya, Upper Egypt)
27. Evangelical Church – burned (Minya, Upper Egypt)
28. Church of Anba Moussa al-Aswad- burned (Minya, Upper Egypt)
29. Church of the Apostles – burned (Minya, Upper Egypt)
30. Church of St Mary – arson attempt (Qena, Upper Egypt)
31. Coptic Church of St. George – burned (Sohag, Upper Egypt)
32. Church of Santa Damiana – Attacked and burned (Sohag, Upper Egypt)
33. Church of the Virgin Mary – burned (Sohag, Upper Egypt)
34. Church of St. Mark and community center – burned (Sohag, Upper Egypt)
35. Church of Anba Abram – destroyed and burned (Sohag, Upper Egypt)

Christian Institutions
1. House of Fr. Angelos – burned (Upper Egypt)
2. Properties and shops of Christians – Burnt (Arish, North Egypt)
3. 17 Christian homes attacked and looted (Minya, Upper Egypt)
4. Christian homes – Attach (Asuit, Upper Egypt)
5. Offices of the Evangelical Foundation – burned (Minya, Upper Egypt)
6. Stores, pharmacies, hotels owned by Christians – attacked and looted (Luxor, Upper Egypt)
7. Library of the Bible Society – burned (Cairo)
8. Bible Society – burned (Fayoum, Upper Egypt)
9. Bible Society- burned (Asuit, North Egypt).

Obama was perfectly happy to keep flooding Egypt with our money so long as those responsible for these outrages were running the country. When they lost their grip on power, he secretly shut the money off. It would seem Obama's global philosophy is inline with the "brotherhood"... anti-Christian and anti-American.

Jackson Jr.'s Looting of America Continues Even From Prison

Whoever said that crime does not pay must not follow liberal politics. For example, consider the continuing lucrative career of Jesse Jackson Jr:

Although disgraced Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. suddenly developed a “mood disorder” as the feds were about to indict him, he qualifies for generous government disability payments because it’s considered a debilitating mental illness.

Of interesting note is that Jackson Jr., sentenced this week to 2 ½ years in prison for corruption, never showed any symptoms of a “mood disorder” during his 17 years as a federal lawmaker. The mental illness surfaced abruptly last summer as the congressman, a member of Judicial Watch’s Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians list, was about to get criminally charged.

Jackson — son of the infamous race baiter — was involved in conspiring to buy Obama’s nearly unused Senate seat.

But that’s not even what Jackson Jr. is going to jail for. In fact, he’s getting off real easy serving just 30 months for illegally using campaign funds as his “personal piggy bank,” according to the federal judge who sentenced him this week. The former congressman spent around $750,000 in campaign cash on outrageous luxury items like celebrity memorabilia, mounted elk heads, fancy jewelry and cashmere caps.

Even after he has finally been put in jail, his looting of taxpayers will continue:

The late onset of what we now know is a debilitating mental illness makes Junior eligible to get $8,700 per month in government disability pay, according to a news report that also says the slammer-bound politician can get a partial federal pension of $45,000 despite his transgressions.

The US Congress, home to the likes of Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel, is among the most disreputable organizations in the country, held in contempt by nearly everyone for having ethical standards that would shame a jailhouse. Is it too much to ask that someone so conspicuously corrupt as to be forced out of a cesspool for stinking it up also be forced off the public teat?

By the way, Jackass Jr. was national co-chair of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. The rot that is killing our country goes straight to the top.

Why Work? Welfare Pays Better Than Entry-Level Job

America was a classless society. But fundamentally transformed America has three classes: (1) the ruling elite that runs the government/media; (2) the dependency class bred by the elite to keep it in power; and (3) the suckers who pay for it all by working instead of voting for a living. To create this system, or rulers are passing out our money in welfare benefits that pay better than getting an entry level job:

Today, the Cato institute is releasing a new study looking at the state-by-state value of welfare for a mother with two children. In the Empire State, a family receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, public housing, utility assistance and free commodities (like milk and cheese) would have a package of benefits worth $38,004, the seventh-highest in the nation.

Since these benefits aren’t taxed, someone in New York State would need to earn $21/hour to beat welfare. That is more than starting teachers get — and not because teachers are underpaid.

Welfare is slightly more generous in Connecticut, where benefits are worth $38,761; a person leaving welfare for work would have to earn $21.33 per hour to be better off. And in New Jersey, a worker would have to make $20.89 to beat welfare.

Nationwide, theirr study found that the wage-equivalent value of benefits for a mother and two children ranged from a high of $60,590 in Hawaii to a low of $11,150 in Idaho. In 33 states and the District of Columbia, welfare pays more than an $8-an-hour job. In 12 states and DC, the welfare package is more generous than a $15-an-hour job.

Of course, not everyone on welfare gets all seven of the benefits in our study. But, for many recipients — particularly the “long-term” dependents — welfare clearly pays substantially more than an entry-level job.

It is conceivable that some rank and file Democrats are so ideologically obedient that even after FDR’s disastrous prolongation of the Depression and LBJ’s lost War on Poverty they still believe the purpose of welfare is to help the poor. But by now our rulers must know what they are doing. The purpose of welfare is to keep people dependent and relatively poor, so they will continue voting Democrat. An entry level job is the first rung on a ladder socialists would prefer most of us not to climb.

The shrinking number who work anyway and are forced to finance the indolence of those who don’t are slaves as surely as an African imported to work a plantation in the days of yore. The welfare state is economically unsustainable and morally intolerable.

Barry... Whose Side Are You On?

Obama interrupted a hard day of lazing around Martha’s Vineyard to denounce the “arbitrary arrests” of Muslim Brotherhood supporters and the “broad crackdown on Mr. Morsi’s associations and supporters” and then insisted “We don’t take sides with any particular party or political figure.”

It was quite a turn to take in a single speech, but he did have a full day of golfing to get in.

“We’ve been blamed by supporters of Morsi; we’ve been blamed by the other side as if we are supporters of Morsi,” Obama said. “That kind of approach will do nothing to help Egyptians achieve the future that they deserve.”

He did not bother to explain how his efforts to free the leaders of an organization that was burning churches across Egypt would help Egyptians achieve the future they deserved. Unless perhaps he thought that the ethnic cleansing of Christians in Egypt, as in Syria, was the future that they deserved.

On Martha’s Vineyard, Obama disavowed all responsibility for the Muslim Brotherhood while insisting, once again, that its leaders should be set free.

Back in Cairo, in the days leading up to the great speech that was supposed to transform America’s relationship with the Muslim world, his administration had insisted that at least ten members of the Muslim Brotherhood attend the speech.

Obama had ordered Mubarak to step down, ratifying a military/protester coup that was not in substance any different than the one that forced Morsi out of office.

While Obama was forcing Mubarak out, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was claiming that the Muslim Brotherhood was a “largely secular” organization that “eschewed violence.” It was a blatant lie that was unnecessary except to reduce opposition to the future Brotherhood victory.

While his officials seem eager to denounce the actions of the Post-Morsi government on a daily basis, they had nothing to say when Morsi was torturing political opponents.

At his confirmation hearing, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the United States had to keep providing weapons to Egypt because “The fact that sometimes other countries elect someone you don’t completely agree with doesn’t give us permission to walk away.”

This June, Kerry insisted that we had to keep providing aid to Egypt, despite Morsi’s abuses and lack of democracy, in order to maintain “a channel to Egyptian military leadership, who are key opinion makers in the country.”

But once Morsi was gone, the F-16s that had been the subject of such controversy, and that Obama had insisted on providing to Morsi, were denied to the Egyptian military. Obama was willing to provide advanced weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood, but not to the Egyptian military.

Obama demanded that the Egyptian military go easy on the Brotherhood protesters, but had made no such requests of Morsi. He repeatedly emphasized that foreign aid was on the line in his threats to the new Egyptian government, but had made no move to warn Morsi that foreign aid was linked to his treatment of the political opposition.

During the Morsi era, the administration insisted that human rights could not be linked to Egyptian military or civilian aid. After Morsi, suddenly the same officials were very interested in human rights.

In the days and weeks after Morsi’s overthrow, administration officials and spokesmen made it painfully clear that they wanted the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in any new government.

Early on, Obama had said that everyone’s voices must be heard, including “those who have supported President Morsy.” There were no such calls the first time around to ensure that the voices of those who supported Mubarak would be heard.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the United States could not support the arrests of Muslim Brotherhood leaders and urged the new government, which covered the spectrum from liberals to Islamists, to be more “inclusive.” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki emphasized that arresting Brotherhood leaders would make a “national reconciliation” impossible.

There were urgent calls for a rapid transition back to elected civilian government. That policy of rapid elections had led to the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood the first time around as any foreign policy expert had known it would after the earlier victories by Hamas; the Muslim Brotherhood’s arm in Gaza. This was part of a pattern that would begin playing out across the region.

In Syria, Obama had made the decision to arm the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Free Syrian Army while disregarding its blatant ties to Al Qaeda.

In Libya, an Islamist militia linked to the Muslim Brotherhood had been paid to protect the Benghazi mission, which had been deprived of more conventional security and assistance.

While the protests against the Brotherhood were mounting in Egypt, in Libya the Muslim Brotherhood was orchestrating a wave of protests against the government. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood insisted on its right to power because it was the democratically elected government, while in Libya it was trying to overthrow a democratically elected government.

Libya, Egypt and Syria formed a triangle of conflicts, with Libyan weapons moving on to Syria and Egyptian Jihadists involving themselves in both conflicts. A former Egyptian intelligence officer has recently alleged that the killer of Ambassador Stevens can be found with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. There are other allegations that the Benghazi attackers shouted, “Dr. Morsi sent us.”

A translated Libyan government memo reportedly stated that the captured Benghazi attackers were Egyptians with backing from the Muslim Brotherhood.

In a region as clouded with claims and counter-claims, with conspiracy theories and real conspiracies, it can be hard to know what the truth is, but there is little doubt that whatever pallid denials Obama may offer before embarking on another round of golf, his administration chose to get deep into bed with an international terrorist organization.

All the accusations, true or untrue, are the product of that first conspiracy.

Obama created a set of favorable conditions that would allow the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists to take over country after country. When they couldn’t do it non-violently, he went to war, as he did in Libya. When he couldn’t go to war for them, he supplied them with weapons and training, as he did in Syria. When they were overthrown, he supported them to the hilt, as he is doing in Egypt.

The wave of terror spreading over the region has empowered Al Qaeda and endangered America, bringing no stability, only an endless conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and everyone else. Threading through the center of the relationship between Obama and the Brothers is the web that links the various conflicts, the alliances between Islamist militias and the Muslim Brotherhood and the wave of attacks on American diplomatic facilities that took place on the anniversary of September 11.

The son of Muslim Brotherhood leader Khairat Al-Shater, the man who was originally meant to be the President of Egypt, has come forward to claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is blackmailing Obama with documents that could put him in jail.

Meanwhile the Egyptian authorities have arrested Mohammed al Zawahiri, the younger brother of the leader of Al Qaeda, who had been held in deep detention under Mubarak, but was freed under Morsi. Zawahiri became a top leader in Ansar Al-Sharia, a sister organization of the one accused of carrying out the Benghazi attack. Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad, another terrorist freed under Morsi, was reportedly closely involved in that attack.

Egypt has already charged Morsi with collaborating with Hamas. It will be interesting to see what information the same security establishment that helped the Bush administration break captured Al Qaeda terrorists will pry out of Mohammed al Zawahiri.

Radical Muslims and liberals are allies with a common enemy... Christians and America.

‘Children of God Will Die’: MSNBC Host Says Only ‘Phony Christians’ Oppose ObamaCare

MSNBC host Ed Schultz unleashed Saturday on Christians who oppose President Obama’s landmark healthcare law, branding them as “phony Christians” and saying the repeal of the law would certainly result in the death of innocent children.

Schultz, who hosts ‘The Ed Show” on weekends, said the new healthcare law “is the most moral thing this country has ever done” and hammered those who disagree.

“This is good for America and I won’t let them lie,” Schultz said.

“They’re phony Christians. Phony Christians when they say that they are Christian but then they want to take away from their next door neighbor. They don’t want to be their brother’s keeper.”

“A growing number of right wing Christians are coming out day after day as a Christian,” he continued. “I think I have the right to expose their hypocrisy and call them out for all the things they are saying wrong and how misguided they are.”

The liberal host then said “it is a fact” that innocent Americans will die if the law is repealed.

“It is very simple. If ObamaCare is repealed, Americans will die. Children of God will die,” he said.

Schultz, who claims he is a born again Christian, made the comments during a segment where he asked if the “Christian conservative campaign against Obamacare is dangerous for America.” 

Just more of the same Liberal propaganda... anti-Christian, pro Chicago Jesus.

Executive Order Tells Teachers Not To Reprimand Black Students

Pres. Obama is asking public school teachers to “take it easy” on black students who misbehave.

On July 26, 2012, Obama signed an Executive Order to create the African American Education Initiative. The order births a new federal bureaucracy and effectively offers black students a green light to misbehave at school.


Obama asked public school teachers to reduce the number of disciplinary actions taken against black students. Specifically, it calls on schools to “not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.”

Liberal racism?

The order, however, does not include any suggestions to improve black students’ inappropriate behavior.

Members of the new bureaucracy will work to pressure public school systems into complying with the president’s order. To do that, public schools must utilize a quota system.

That’s right, a quota system.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reports, “There is a huge crime rate disparity between blacks and other racial groups.”

So, wouldn’t it make sense that black students were discipline more frequently?

DOJ’s report shows that homicide rates in black communities are nine times higher than in white communities. Subsequently, 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by black perpetrators.

But Obama argues that disciplining black students isn’t fair because they “lack equal access” to quality education.

Let’s look at the facts.

Washington, D.C. spends the highest amount on average per student of any U.S. state or territory. D.C. public schools also “educate” more black students than anywhere else in the country. Despite D.C.’s “overfunding” public schools, they are “widely touted as the worst performing schools in the entire industrialized world.”

Obama’s motives for this initiative are clearly flawed.

Why would schools allow ANY student to misbehave, never mind only punishing certain students based on the color of their skin.


View here: Executive Order

It should be noted that the White House did not list this "Order" on main page of actions... wonder why?

Americans Selling Their Food Stamps For Cash

The percentage of Americans selling their food stamps back to stores for cash has increased by 30 percent over the past several years, according to a new Agriculture Department study.

The study on food stamps trafficking -- which the agency said included “covert investigation” in stores -- compared the periods of 2006 -2008 to 2009 -2011.

Despite the increase, trafficking has declined since the 1990s, when the rate was nearly 4 percent of food stamps, also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs benefits.

The total amount of SNAP benefits is now at roughly $858  million, compared to $330 million annually in the 2006-2008 period.

The increase reflects the overall growth  in SNAP participation and benefits, the agency said in the August 2013 report.

Recipients typically sell back their benefits at a discount, according to the agency, which said its undercover investigations and research into electronic SNAP transactions focused on  stores that showed “suspicious activities.”
However, the numbers were later adjusted to reflect activity within the entire program.

While the trafficking doesn’t directly increase costs for the federal government, it diverts taxpayer money intended to help low-income families get access to a nutritious diet.

About 10.5 percent of all authorized SNAP stores engaged in trafficking, the study found, compared 8.2 percent in the 2006-2008 review.

The study also found the likelihood of trafficking varied by store characteristics and settings.

Small grocery or convenience stores, for example, accounted for about 15 percent of all redemptions but 85 percent of trafficking redemptions.

In addition, trafficking was more likely to occur in privately owned stores compared to publicly owned shops and was more likely among retailers in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.

Anyone surprised?

CBO Report: Last Year's Deficit Hit $1.087 Trillion; Obama's First-Term Saw Annual Deficits Over $1 Trillion

The Congressional Budget Office last week released updated historical budget data for the federal government, reporting a deficit of $1.087 trillion in fiscal 2012.

Last year marked the fourth straight year—and the only four years in the history of the nation--when the federal government’s deficit topped $1 trillion.

Last year’s $1.087 trillion deficit was even greater in inflation-adjusted dollars than the peak World War II deficit of fiscal 1943—which was $54.554 billion in 1943 dollars and $723.8714 billion in 2012 dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics online inflation calculator.

The deficit has also remained at a higher percentage of GDP over the last four years than at any time since the conclusion of World War II (which ended during fiscal 1946, which began in June 1945).


In fiscal 2011, the deficit was $1.2956 trillion, according to the CBO; in fiscal 2010, it was $1.2935 trillion; and, in fiscal 2009, it was $1.412.7 trillion.

President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, during the fourth month of fiscal 2009, and governed for more than eight months of that fiscal year. In his first full month in office, February 2009 he pushed through a economic stimulus plan that the CBO now says will add $830 billion to the deficit in fiscal year 2009-2019.

In fiscal 2008, the last full year President George W. Bush was in office, the federal deficit was $458.6 billion, according to the CBO.

As a percentage of GDP, the deficits for fiscal years 2009-2012 were greater then the federal deficits in any yea since World War II.

Nice job, Barry.

This Weeks Edition of Intellectual Froglegs...

A Liberal Use of Words

Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1932, redefined the word liberalism. Prior to 1932, liberalism meant “a belief in individual liberty.” He gave the word a new meaning: “a belief in paternalistic government and trading individual liberty for state-sponsored security” by redefining what he called “the forgotten man.”

In 1932, FDR talked about helping someone he called “the forgotten man.” This phrase came from a book that had been written decades earlier by William Graham Sumner. However, Roosevelt redefined Sumner’s definition of “the forgotten man.” Sumner defines “the forgotten man” in this way: Jim and Frank want to help Sally, so they team up and pass a law that coerces John to co-fund their favorite project to help Sally. In this scenario, Sumner defines the forgotten man as John, who is coerced to co-fund someone else’s project. He is the man who works, prays, and pays his own bills and is never considered by the likes of Jim and Frank. FDR defined Sally as “the forgotten man,” redefining the original concept. In FDR’s scenario, Jim and Frank were Roosevelt himself, and other like-minded people. The vast majority of American citizens became those who were coerced into co-funding Roosevelt’s pet projects.

One problem with American politics today comes from a redefinition of the political spectrum. Take, for example, the word “liberal.” Liberal, in the classical sense, means a “hands off”, or laissez-faire, policy. The United States is an example of a “liberal democracy.” America was founded on the idea that government was to play a minimal role in the affairs of society and the economy, that the job of the government was not to provide direction for society or the economy, but simply to maintain a “free environment” were the public could conduct themselves as they so chose, as long as they didn’t “infringe” on the “rights” of others. This is the classical concept of “liberalism,” the idea of a laissez-faire approach to both economic and social policy. But …

Liberal Tactics 

One of the tactics most used by liberals, who do not have an argument to support their failed policies, is to redefine the meanings of words. Liberals (or, as they now like to be called, progressives) have introduced an era of political correctness so as to offend no one, a rewriting of language and history to ensure that words and phrases that offend certain special interests are redefined or excluded from the vocabulary of those progressives and liberals. You will notice this redefining of the language whenever you read liberal publications or watch liberal broadcasts of the evening news. 

Prolific readers may recognize the term “Newspeak,” from he George Orwell novel 1984 about an oppressive socialist world. Socialists, Marxists, and liberals want to, need to redefine words. They may be morally bankrupt, but they are smart enough to realize that most people will not accept their distorted worldview. So they must redefine their bad ideas into good ones, and redefine good and practical terms into bad ones. 

The pattern has been for liberals to redefine all political debate to the point that anything which does not conform to their agenda is instantly characterized as “rancor,” “extremism,” or “hate.” While liberals have engaged in such tactics for many years, the degree to which it is currently done has grown in recent years. The Tea Party’s devotion to fiscal sanity is “draconian” or “mean spirited.” Concern for the moral preservation and restoration of the nation and its foundational institutions including traditionally defined marriage, is “homophobic” or “hateful.” Protection of the unborn is “sexist” or “anti-woman.” Recognition of the cultural and spiritual roots of the nation, and their critical importance to its future are “religious intolerance” or “xenophobia.” Yet Congresswoman Maxine Waters is called “mainstream” by the MSM. 

Redefinition of Words 

With the redefinition of words in mind, let’s examine some words that liberals (progressives) have redefined. I am sure that you can add a few more.

• Being Open Minded: To a liberal, this has nothing at all to do with seriously considering other people's ideas. To the contrary, liberals define being "open-minded" as agreeing with them. What could be more close-minded than assuming that not only are you right, but that you don't even need to consider another viewpoint because anyone who disagrees must be evil? 
• Charity: Contributing your own money or time to a good cause is charity. Liberals view themselves as charitable if they take someone else's tax dollars and give it away to people they hope will vote for them in return. At a minimum, they should at least credit the taxpayers who paid for the money they gave away for the charity, although it's not really charity if it's involuntary. Of course, there's nothing charitable about asking someone else to sacrifice for your gain, which could actually be better described as selfish.
• Discrimination: a word that has lost meaning in the progressive era from over use by the MSM and this administration. To liberals discrimination means not giving equal stuff to members of minorities, who should have whatever they want, and everyone else must pay for those wants.
• Diversity: a blend of several unique items coexisting, such as a diversified stock portfolio. What liberals mean by "diversity" is that they want a broad range of people from different races, colors, and creeds who have identical political views. A black or Hispanic conservative doesn't contribute to "diversity" in liberal eyes because he actually has diverse views. Incredible role models for women like Sarah Palin can't be feminists to liberals because she doesn't share the same liberal beliefs as sexist pigs like Anthony Weiner and Bill Maher. How can you have any meaningful "diversity" when everyone has to think the same way?
• Equality: an idea which states that each member of a given group has equal value or equal authority. To liberals it means forced equal outcomes regardless of skill, experience, or effort, as in racial quotas.
• Fairness: In all fairness, I must admit that fairness is an arbitrary concept. So, you could make the argument that no one could get "fairness" wrong. Still, liberals do because they don't make any effort to actually "be fair." As a practical matter, liberals define "fairness" as taking as much as possible from people who they don't think are going to vote for them and giving it to people who may vote for them in return for their ill gotten largesse. Certainly conservatives, libertarians, and moderates might disagree about how much money to take from the wealthy to redistribute to the poor or how to help the disadvantaged, but the only liberal answer to the question, "How much is enough?" is "more." 
• Greed: To a liberal, believing that you pay too much in taxes or even opposing paying more in taxes is greedy. In actuality, wanting to loot as much money as possible that someone else has earned to use for your own purposes, which is what liberals do, is a much better example of greed. 
• Hate: Liberals often define simple disagreement with them on issues like gay marriage, tax rates, or abortion as hatred. No matter how well a position is explained, or the logical underpinnings behind it, it's chalked up to hate. Meanwhile, the angriest, most vicious, most hateful people in all of politics are liberals railing against what they say is "hatred." This irony is completely lost on the Left. 
• Investment: Actual investments involve putting money or resources into a project in hopes that they will appreciate in value. Liberals skip the second half of that equation. To them, an "investment" is taking someone else's tax dollars and putting it into a project that liberals approve of and whether a profit is made or lost is so irrelevant that they typically don't even bother to measure the results.
• Patriotism: Liberals love America the way a wife beater loves his spouse. That's why they're always beating up the country "for its own good." Doesn't the country understand that liberals have to hit it in the mouth because they LOVE IT SO MUCH?!?!? Of course, the conventional definition of patriotism, which is loving your country and wishing it well, isn't one that liberals can wrap their heads around.  
• Progressive: A “progressive” focuses on using government power to make institutions play by a set of rules. But liberals want to define “the rules.” Are you beginning to see how subtle liberals can be? Does the EPA come to mind?
• Prejudice: “Prejudice” means literally to pre-judge. But liberals cannot stop there – they add racial or class or sex or … so as to fit their agenda and change the meaning of the word.
• Racist: The MSM and current administration have used this word so much that the word has lost relevance in any honest debate. Liberals start with the presumption that only white people who don't belong to the Democratic Party can be racist. So, for example, even if Jeremiah Wright can make it clear that he hates white people because of their skin color or if liberals take an explicitly racist political position, like suggesting that black people are too stupid and incompetent to get identification to vote, they can't be racist. White Republicans, on the other hand, are generally assumed to be racist by default, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
• Rainbow: a “rainbow” is literally a circular color spectrum appearing in the sky due to the result of refraction and multiple reflections of sunlight in droplets of water. Liberals have redefined the word as a symbol of homosexuality. It has also been redefined and used by left-wing political pressure groups to refer to their agenda of multiculturalism. The word has also been mis-used by liberals as a symbol of “diversity.” 
• Tolerance: In a free, open, and pluralistic society, there are all sorts of behaviors that we may have to tolerate, even though we don't approve of those activities. Liberals don't get this distinction. For one thing, they don't understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance. They also don't extend any of the tolerance they're agitating for to people who disagree with them. Liberals silence people who disagree with them at every opportunity which is, dare we say it, an extremely intolerant way to behave.
• Tyranny: tyranny literally means oppressive power exerted by government. This word is not present in the progressive liberal vocabulary.
• Union Dues: to liberals, union dues means voluntary contributions from individuals who are happy to belong to a union and agree with all actions the union takes. In actuality, it is money coerced from union members as a condition of employment. 

Liberal ideologues redefine words to help advance a religious, political, environmental, scientific or social agenda. Never mind that to do so is to pervert the truth. Their motto is "The end justifies the means" or to be more precise: Do whatever it is you must in order to get the result you want, regardless of the methods used. "It does not matter whether these methods are legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lies, democratic or dictatorial, good or evil."

 "The first reaction to truth is hatred." — Tertullian